Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Norwich City F.C./archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Norwich City F.C.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Another stepping stone towards a FT about Norwich City F.C.. The Rambling Man and I have tried hard to avoid POV (having an Ipswich fan working on this has helped) and recentism... article is slightly tilted chronologically, but only because most of Norwich's most notable achievements have come since 1972.

Greatly appreciate constructive criticism. Thanks, Dweller (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Finally a chance to help The Rambling Man (and Dweller). I will admit I am fairly ignorant when it comes to football, which might make me the ideal reader for detecting jargon. I think the article as it stands is very well done and have some comments, mostly nit-picking, that hopefully will help improve it.

  • The lead summarizes the article, but does seem a bit sparse (and I note the peer review script thinks it could be expanded, probably to four paragraphs).
    Thanks. Will do. --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. I considered something about managerial merry-go-rounds since 2000, but thought that too recentist. The astonishing role played by Geoffrey Watling and his dad in a period from 1919 to the 1990s seemed more apt. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely done Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within the lead, should the actual current date be used in Since then, Norwich City has acquired a reputation as a "yo-yo club",[4] with 21 seasons in the top league and 15 in the second tier, where they currently reside.[5][6] i.e. instead of "where they currently reside." say something like "where they reside as of the 2007-2008 season."?
    Good idea. --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I just reread the lead and it still used "currently reside" - OK, it is linked to the year Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps add a comma here Norwich City F.C. was formed on 17 June, 1902,[9] by a group of friends following a meeting at the Criterion Cafe in Norwich[,] and played its first competitive match against...
    I disagree with the first and don't use the Oxford comma, (which is fine per MOS), so this one's a nix, but cheers anyway. --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, just a suggestion Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the yellow uniforms followed the nickname, is there any idea where "Canaries" comes from?
    Hmm... you're right, that needs some better explanation. It's a little vague, but we do kind of know. There's a full version I cut down too much at Norwich_City_F.C.#Colours_and_crest. I'll add some more. --Dweller (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done as well as history allows. The exact reasons are lost in the mist of time. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems fine Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even I know what "FA" stands for, but by the MOS shouldn't it be spelled out the first time?
    Good spot. It was in fact wikilinked on the first occasion that wasn't "F.A. Cup", but was incorrectly abbreviated without its stops. --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done... and fixed a number of FAs to F.A. I'm troubled by the inconsistency between F.A. and UEFA. Appreciate advice. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the Football Association website [1] and they use "FA" (no stops), so unless there is a MOS or WikiProject guidline to use "F.A." I would go with the no stops version. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add another comma, I think The club officials, including founding chairman Robert Webster[,] had to be removed from office and Norwich were to be ousted...
    Yup, I'll go with that one. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition in In May 1920, The Football League formed a third Division and Norwich joined the Third Division for the following season.[20], perhaps better as In May 1920, The Football League formed a Third Division, which Norwich joined for the following season.[20]
    Good spot. I hate tautology, me, I loathe it. Repeating myself twice? Done. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps put Coventry City into context here (assume they were amuch better team at the time): The rest of the decade proved more successful for the club with a club-record victory, 10–2,[21] over Coventry City and...
    Not sure what you mean here... unless you're suggesting amended text and someone's already fixed it? --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just meant that I did not understand the significance of of the victory. If it is the margin of victory (10-2) or the fact that they defeated Coventry City (I assumed the latter before, now I am suspecting the latter - 10 goals is a lot). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's the club's record win. I tried to include some of the key club records. I'll clarify. --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think it's already clear? --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the names of opponent teams include "FC" or not? Most do not, but at least one (Luton Town FC) does.
    Luton de-FCd --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does (and were eight points clear shortly before Christmas),[45] mean they were 8 points ahead of everyone else? Not a phrase I am familiar with (sorry) but seems to mean this from context
    Yes. It's a common football parlance and is short for "clear of the field", borrowed from horseracing. I'll change to the more elaborate form. Is that clearer? (Pun, sorry) Or is that still English English that's obscure? --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it was fairly clear from context before Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vitesse Arnhem is identified as of the Netherlands, Bayern Munich is clear, but Internazionale is not identified as of Milan(o). Should it be for consistency? Shockingly I had to click the link to make sure.
    You're quite right, sort of. I'll clarify all nationalities. Using "Milan" would be dicey, as it risks treading into the Inter-AC Milan local rivalry, which I'm not brave enough for! :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Can you use "Internazionale Milan" or is that not done? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... In two minds on this now. In English usage, they're commonly referred to as "Inter Milan" or "Internazionale", ususally abbreviated to "Inter". The first of these usages is, IMHO, usually regarded as low-brow, the middle one "correct" (!) and the last as acceptable. Given that the last clarfies even less than the second (worse, looks like an English word) I think we're tossing up the first two options. I'd be loathe to go for option one. I'll drop a line to WT:FOOTY and see what other football fans think. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that "Internazionale" is the only option, tbh. – PeeJay 12:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "over two legs" mean in Norwich's cup run was ended by Internazionale, who defeated them 2–0, over two legs.[52]? Jargon (to me at least)
    Ooh, a goody. That is indeed jargon. Fixed with a wikilink. I've done the same for the jargon term "aggregate" earlier in the para - both wikilinks point to Two-legged match which is unusual but I think necessary, as we have no separate page to define aggregate scores. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comma needed, I think: Deehan resigned just before relegation was confirmed and his deputy, Megson[,] took over as temporary boss until the end of the season.[58]
    I'll go with that. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "The" in "The new millennium" be there (MOS)?
    It's a section header. MOS has it that they should begin with cap. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant should the header just read "New millennium" (no "The") at all? I am fine with the The in or out. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh! OK, fixed... and improved! Sorry for being a thickie. --Dweller (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is an error - period for a comma right after Earnshaw: Dean Ashton was sold for a club-record £7m, approximately a 100% profit on the fee they had paid just one year earlier,[82] and £3.5m was immediately reinvested in the purchase of Welsh striker Robert Earnshaw.[83] who helped the Canaries' revival to a ninth place finish.[84]
    Yeah. Fixed. Ta. --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence is quite long and complex, perhaps break into two: Worthington made just one permanent signing in the close season,[85] and despite the sale of goalkeeper Robert Green to West Ham United,...
    Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last paragraph starts Norwich made a terrible start to the season, with only two wins by mid October;... should it be made explicit that this is the 2007-08 season?
    Yeah, why not. Done. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the nit picks help make a great article even better, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. I'll start responding, point by point, above. Cheers --Dweller (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I think. Please feel free to disagree with me or explain where I've misunderstood, or been thick. Very constructive... the article's improved for your suggestions. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the ones that need replies, looks very good, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)
  • I think all the dates need wikilinking. There are a variety of date formats in the article, so such linking would solve that.
    Ah. We've come across this before at FAC and FLC. I've gone through articles and wikilinked every date and then undone the lot because someone's pointed out that policy suggests we shouldn't wikilink dates that are not exceptionally historic, on the basis that no-one will want to read about "November" or even (say) "7 November 1935" (but they might for the date of D-Day). On the flip side, and I know TRM is sympathetic to this opinion, wikilinking puts the dates into the format of the reader's preference. I frankly don't mind, as I can see logic in both opinions, but can argue against both (vs former, what's the harm? vs latter, as an intelligent person I can understand November 7th 1935 is the same as 7th November 1935). I'm happy to fix any which way, but only want to do it once. I invite wider opinion/advice, esp. from TRM. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about the over linking, etc, and although I also understand November 7 1935 is the same as 7 November 1935, I prefer the same style just for a consistent look even if they weren't wikilinked. Peanut4 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, don't get me wrong, I agree they should be made consistent. I'll just wait for TRM's input before spending time making them consistent using any particular methodology. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. Peanut4 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Link 'em! You knew I'd say that... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text flips between Norwich City being singular and plural. I prefer the plural but it certainly needs to be consistent.
    Another can of worms. Should be singular for the club and plural for the team. (So, Norwich City is a club from Norfolk, Norwich City were brilliant when they beat Ipswich 18-0 in my dreams) A quirk of English. I'll check in case that's not been consistently applied. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See discretionary plurals. God Bless British English. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text also flips between The Football League and the Football League. Even one of the football league later on.
    I'm gonna fix this, but will capitalise The Football League when it refers to the institution and leave lower case the football league when referring to the table system, e.g. The Football League would tell you to do something, but you can finish bottom of the football league. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following a F.A. commission" - I think it should be Football Association, since this is the first reference to the FA.
    Done. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rest of the decade proved more successful for the club with a club-record victory" Would change first use of club to Norwich
    Good spot! Done. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With debts amounting to more than £20,000, the club was rescued by the formation of a new Board," I really don't think it should be capital B.
    Sorry, I disagree on that one. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The "'59 cup run" ". I'd prefer " The "1959 cup run" ".
    That's a good spot. It's a local nomenclature. I've explained + reffed it. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Chris Sutton. 21 year-old I think should be 21-year-old.
    OK. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection, I think it's correct the way it is. Anyone else got an opinion? --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like either, but couldn't find MOS guidance, and all top Ghits suggest hyphens all the way, per Peanut4... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't (£900K) be (£900,000) ?
    Phoo yuck. Yes! Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, I made it £0.9m to be consistent with the other fees in the sentence. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The club was expected to make a quick return to the Premiership in the 2005–06 season,[79][80] but a terrible first four months to the campaign saw City fall as low as 18th in The Championship. Worthington had won promotion just two seasons earlier, but "by October, following some inept performances and bad results, the fans started to turn on Nigel Worthington."" This seems to go over old ground a little and at first seriously confused me.
    Sentences now tidied. Backward reference is contextual - someone so recently successful now being given the boot. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of phrases in brackets. I'd prefer them to be worded in the main part of the prose if they're important enough of be deleted altogether.
    This is a flaw in my style that TRM likes to take the mickey about. Yup, I'll reduce their incidence. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nabbed a few. Hope the remaining ones are justifiable and now less intrusive. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any images relating to the earlier part of Norwich's history?
    Yes. I'm confident I can get some pix pre 1923 before this goes to FAC as I'm told I can scan them in without breaching our frankly confusing image rights policies --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the last eight years really important enough to warrant that much information? I will concede to your own information on the subject if it does, but it seems excessively weighty.
    That's fair comment. There's been immense managerial turnover in the last 8 years, but I'll reconsider the size of the section and see if I can prune it. If it gets small enough it can go with the previous. However, I've realised I've omitted the centenary celebrations, which will make it longer again. --Dweller (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed this. The addition of the centenary makes it hard to justify merging sections. The last 8 years have seen record transfers in and out, too many (!) changes in manager, a divisional championship and relegation and a play-off final. I think it's about as terse as it should be and I'd defend it against recentism. TRM, as someone who's not a noted Norwich lover (!) and as someone who hates recentism, what's your take? --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm absolutely fine with it, if you are. I've been writing History of Bradford City A.F.C. and was asked at GA if it was weighted correctly. My own response was that any articles on any history matter will have periods of higher notability than others. You're almost certainly in the best position to decide whether it's weighted correctly. Peanut4 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. TRM will tell me if it's wonky. NB The graph at the top of the article tells the story quite well, I think, in terms of how it should be roughly weighted. --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point. That was similar to how I'd done the Bradford City one. I had a gap of about 50 years in the middle where it was light on text because all we did was flip between the top bottom divisions and have a few cash flow crises. It wasn't a patch on our meteoric rise in the first 10 years or so, or the rollercoaster of the Richmond years but it does look a bit odd. Peanut4 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/History_of_Norwich_City_F.C./archive1&oldid=1078820846"